To agree with Corbyn on response after Paris attacks?

[Gisforgustywinds]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34886321.

I am no expert but surely simply bombing Syria is not going to reduce the likelihood of terrors attacks in the UK?

Also, why not remove those who have travelled to Syria to fight with IS from the UK? Would this even be possible?

That was my point Slaggy. I don't want to bomb civilians either and I can't really see it helping but I do understand that governments need to take some action, so what else could we do?

So if you don't want to bomb civilians and it doesn't help, surely it's utter madness (not to mention murder), to just go ahead and do it for the sake of "something"?
That just does not compute to me at all. It's insane. And it's people's lives.

Yes, I agree with you Slaggy, but what's the alternative?

Another who agrees with Corbyn.

It's unfortunate that the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq has still not been published and has been years in the making. No doubt it would make useful reading ahead of any inolvement in bombing Syria.

If we don't bomb ISIS then what do we do?
I understand all the arguments against it, I really do, so what do we do
I do not buy the argument that all they are doing is in retaliation to the west. Some of them are genuinely religious nutters who want the whole world to be in their 'caliphate'
I believe they are different to other threats in that they cannot be reasoned with.
They are not scared of dying.
I think to them it seems like a win-win situation I really do.
We bomb them, they get more recruits, we do nothing and they just carry on undisputed and we've just given them permission to establish their caliphate.
I see a lot of people saying what we shouldn't do, but I've yet to see anybody Saying what we should do.
They are not just attacking us, they are waging their 'holy war' EVERYWHERE.
If somebody could give me just one tactic we could use that will stop them, I'll happily change my mind. I don't like the idea of bombing with potential civilians being killed. I also cannot abide the thought of doing nothing, while they kill the civilians themselves

I do.

Max Hastings - Establishment figure, ex editor of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail commentator, military historian and First Man Into Stanley (titter) during the Falklands - made exactly the same point.

But he got away with it because of all the above.

I also agree with Jeremy Corbyn's comments on a shoot-to-kill policy. I understand the need for armed officers to use the ultimate force in the Paris situation and others.

I would want them to save their own lives and to protect others with extreme prejudice.

But I don't want death squads roaming the land offing people because they or their unaccountable bosses don't like them. And that's what a shoot-to-kill policy is.

Britain has definitely had that policy but it used to be that governments would do anything to deny it.

I'm not a big fan of Corbyn but that's all he was saying and it needed to be said. As a Labour voter on the right of the party I understand the need for pragmatism but I am disgusted by his fellow Labour MPs who have viciously attacked him.

I think it is naive to not employ a shoot to kill policy in the event of a terrorist attack. I also think Corbyn's comments about Mohammed Emwazi were daft. But I am not convinced about bombing in Syria. I don't understand how it could help to wipe out ISIS, who have sympathisers in many countries. I do think we should act with other nations and agree on a common strategy. If that means bombing then I'm all for it, but it needs to be properly thought out with a long term plan.

Well we need to look at what we're 'doing' now Timri. Its not like this country's been sitting on our hands doing nothing.

We've done plenty in the last 15 years in the ME, as well as finding time to create and fund ISIS amongst other groups of fundamentalist nutjobs. . We the USA and France are completely in league with Saudi Arabia in supporting the ISIS thugs to remove Assad. Doubtless if we ‘succeed’ we’ll leave Syria as peaceful, lawful, and democratic as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

So as far as what we could 'do' now - we, (that's you and I) need to put pressure on our gov't to change its course which will only make matters worse.

Timri has put it very well, and I totally agree with that.

None of the decisions we are now faced with are comfortable ones.

If we do nothing, ISIS will continue their campaigns regardless.

If we bomb them in Syria, they will still continue but we might be able to weaken and disrupt their main command structure and training camps. At least we would be taking action, and something needs to be done.

When our Parliament voted against action in Syria a couple of years ago (was it?) I must say I was relieved, as I thought Blair and Bush had acted like a pair of fuckwits going into Iraq on trumped up suppositions of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and without any plan in mind for what was to be done once Saddam Hussein had been removed from power. I wanted no more of it.

Having spent last weekend in Paris visiting my student DD1 (booked and planned weeks before), I have changed my mind regarding action against ISIS in Syria. They must be tackled. I don't like it, and I am aware that there will be loss of life and collateral damage. I don't say any of it lightly, but I really cannot see what other realistic options there are. Surely we cannot just let things go on as they are.

It seems to me that European "terrorists" are invariably disaffected individuals who would probably have become violent criminals (or already were violent criminals) regardless of their involvement with extremists. The issue is more about how you stop violent criminals from acquiring lethal weapons. It seems to me that the answer lies at home, not in Syria.

I also think it's intructive to compare the British approach (working with communities) with the French and Belgian approach (a very aggressive and often racist approach to policing). It is no surprise to me as a french resident that this has happened in Paris twice this year, and not in London.

The Syrian issue is somewhat separate in my mind - something does need to be done about ISIS, but to believe that this is the solution to terrorism in Europe is just silly. Until Paris, the most deadly terrorist attack in Europe in recent years was perpetrated by a white right wing extremist.

Bombing countries creates terrorists. I have no idea why they haven't worked that out yet.
It may have something to do with people with interest in arms supplies getting richer but who knows?

We can't just bomb Syria because we can't think of anything better to do and feel we should do something. That's just revenge, which is what France has admitted they are doing. I don't want a part in that. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

As for shoot to kill. Why do we need this policy? The armed police can already shoot (dead) people who pose an immediate threat.

So would you rather we sit back and do nothing? Not be part of trying to rid ourselves of a group as barbaric as IS.
What happens then when the next set of suicide bombers turn out to be born and live here and murder say lots of Italians, do they get to retaliate by bombing the U.K. Surely it's best to get on the right side now!

I think people have this misguided notion that doing nothing equals our safety. It doesn't. I hate the idea of war and killing innocent people but it really is hard to think of another effective alternative at the moment. Not acting hasnt stopped the spread of ISIS in fact it has massively gained momentum.

Grip why is it better to do 'something' if that 'something' is unlikely to achieve the goal of peace? And may in the long term take us further away from stability?
The government want to use conventional tactics against a foe who are not using conventional tactics.

Bombing ISIS in Iraq hasn't done much either. Putting troops on the ground hasn't seen off the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bombing raids to assist the rebels in Libya hasn't exactly been a riotous success.

"The government want to use conventional tactics against a foe who are not using conventional tactics."

you put it better than me but this is what i have been thinking too. ISIS are everywhere including in Europe. What will they do about ISIS sympathisers who are in the UK, France, the US? How does bombing Syria address the issue of 'home-grown' terrorism? I would have thought it would make them more likely to target us.

Why don't they shut down ISIS' access to money, weapons, resources?

mist

v good point re criminals but they were petty criminals before this.
7 attacks have been foiled in the UK so far. Hundreds if not thousands have gone to fighht from uk.

Someone said France is catching up with their de radicalization program which - apparently in UK is Brilliant.

Wouldn't the money be better spent investing in our police and security at home?

"de radicalization program which - apparently in UK is Brilliant."

Sadly this doesn't make for a great News headline.

I don't think anyone is advocating doing nothing, are they?

I'm not even necessarily against war with ISIS (assuming countries act responsibly towards civilians and in accordance with international law) but the idea that this protects us against terrorism is just laughable. The current bombing campaigns are about revenge, and votes, not about keeping the residents of Paris, Brussels and London safe. Good policing and targeted intelligence are what keeps people safe, and sensible community policies are what helps prevent radicalisation in the first place. Britain hasn't always got policing right but it has done far better at this than France and Belgium.

By the way, while the current generation of terrorists was born and bred in Europe, we risk creating a new generation of extremists, via the appalling treatment of often already-traumatised and vulnerable people in the refugee camps in Calais and Dunkirk. And your government is complicit in this.

I am really confused as to why Assad hasn't been dealt with properly yet. Why is this?

If bombing won't change anything and doing nothing won't change anything, then the default should be to do nothing surely, not the other way around?

But I don't think we should do nothing- I am not an expert and don't know what would be best. But rushing into bombing because you can't immediately think of something better to do seems madness. And the last time they wanted us to bomb Syria, it was against Assad not ISIS. At the very least there should be a UN agreement that the war would be legal (they have not agreed to this at the moment for whatever reason).

The armed police can already shoot (dead) people who pose an immediate threat

Loads of terror police have been on talking about how our police could never mobilize and defend us against a Paris style attack. One said
" it would be like going into boxing match with one arm tied behind back" because we don't have the fire power.

Yes I think the money would be better spent on stopping attacks via intelligence, stopping radicalisation, looking after refugees who want to change their country. If they've been happy and welcome here then they're less likely to hate us.